On 29 July 2013 13:35, Michael Forney <mforney_AT_mforney.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Jul 2013 12:47:49 +0200, Silvan Jegen <s.jegen_AT_gmail.com> wrote:
>> So the reason you would not want dwm to be a shell plugin for Weston is
>> that Weston is too focused on fancy modern features, correct?
>
> Eh, maybe I am being a bit too hard on Weston. It just seems to be
> growing quite steadily which scares me and I wasn't thrilled with it
> overall.
>
>> Implementing a proxy wl_shell for this hypothetical blitting compositor
>> and having dwm as a separate process communicating with it would be
>> another possible approach.
>
> Yeah, that's what I tried to describe.

I consider putting something like this on my TODO list for *after* the
sta.li release...